5 Analysing minority-majority relations
6.2. On the methodology
Studying minority discourses offers a window to two points of interest: firstly, to what is locally achieved with certain discourses, and secondly, what they reveal of the larger social and ideological context (Varjonen, 2013). Discourse analysis on pre-existing text can reveal how minority members portray themselves and how they describe their relationship to different groups. In contrast, discourse generated through interviews and focus group discussions may have the disadvantage of framing the discourse beforehand. If the research setting categorises the participants automatically as ‘immigrants’, and if the research questions prompt to discuss multiculturalism, it is possible that a minority identity becomes salient even if it normally is not the first and foremost identity for the participant. By choosing data that is created outside the research situation hopefully provides a more natural source of information.
It is also necessary to reflect on the limitations of this thesis. Presenting the five common repertoires in these blogs is not suggesting that these are the only ways that politicians of immigrant origins could make sense of minority-majority relations. The results of a qualitative study cannot be generalised to claim that these are the ways of talking about intergroup relations. Instead, this thesis has shown that these are five possible ways of approaching the issue. The analytic process itself was intuitive and continuously re-evaluative. The definition of the possible interpretative repertoires was based on the following principles: the aim was to find as many different repertoires instead of focusing on one or two, and their definition was based on content and not form (see Suoninen 1992, p. 125–130).
The first point in these principles in fact presented a dilemma: a data corpus this large combined with a wide research subject – minority-majority relations – resulted in identifying several distinct repertoires that were consequently regrouped and combined under larger umbrellas. This caused some difficulties in connecting between certain text parts and the repertoires, as the merging of the more distinct
‘sub-repertoires’ resulted in some questions on repertoire boundaries. However, as previously mentioned, defining repertoires is a process of choice and interpretation that does not always fit with the aim of having rigid categorisations. The latter point in the analysis principles also ties into this dilemma: definition of repertoires based on content and not form meant that two identical text parts could be classified into two different repertoires according to how the content linked to the repertoires. For example, there were many parts of the data where discerning between the humanistic and collectivistic repertoires posed a challenge (this was pointed out in relation to extract 16). How the text part linked to the content of the repertoire was more decisive than whether it shared some formal characteristics (metaphors, typical expressions etc.).
In addition to the challenge of defining the interpretative repertoires, the analysis also presented a challenge in terms of deducing the functions and the consequences of the repertoires. While the distinction of the repertoires and the subject positions
should be strictly based on the data, the analysis of situational functions and ideological consequences has been done on a more speculative manner, again following Suoninen’s (1992, p. 127–128) methodology. At the same time, it is acknowledged that these are not the only interpretations and certainly not final conclusions regarding the data. The next step would be to conduct a more detailed analysis on a smaller data set, for instance a few key blogs, and analyse the relationship between different repertoires. As mentioned in the previous section, this could reveal interesting information on the functions of the repertoires as well as the rhetorical strategies used to attain those discursive goals and coordinate between contradictory repertoires.
6.3 Conclusions
In a climate of polarised media discussions and heated political debates on immigration and immigrants, it is more important than ever to draw attention to the different ways that minorities position themselves in these discussions. The minority voice should be given more space in the public discussion on the place of immigrants in the Finnish society, to give a rounder impression of the multiple identities that exist in today’s world, and to allow for the contestation of taken-for-granted minority categories. This master’s thesis is an attempt to take research into that direction: to show those who are spoken about as capable of speaking for themselves, and to shed some more light on how ethnic minority members construct not only their identities but also the identities of others around them, as well as the relationships of different groups in Finnish society.
In every society, there will always be minorities and minorities within minorities. The true way to harmonious and equal intergroup relations is not the through the levelling of differences, but through the negotiation of a common identity to include all of those who it affects and who identify with that identity. It is essential to keep the discussion alive on the meaning of Finnishness, for example, and to promulgate the defining belonging and participation in society on the basis of certain requirements or characteristics without threatening the identity or belonging of any groups involved – in Kelman’s (1997b, p. 336) words, discursive work around
identities is important as it prevents them from becoming “non-negotiable” items.
Discursive research can open windows to understanding these negotiations – through the exploration of meanings, discursive psychologists also dig into what is constructed with these meanings, and offer possible entry points to changing the common understanding of human phenomena (Taylor, 2001). It is important to make people aware of these negotiations and processes in order to provide space for alternative discourses. As demonstrated in this thesis, the negotiation of identities is not merely a symbolic act but has social, economic and political implications in terms of rights and responsibilities (Edley, 2001).
Social media and blogs can be viewed as a site through which immigrants and other minorities can have a voice and make claims. They can be used to advocate for discourses of belonging and participation, but can also be seen in themselves as an indication of democratic participation through the political and social debate that they entail (Bleich et al., 2015). Some researchers have questioned whether the blogging of politicians of immigrant background actually reaches the mainstream audience, or if it remains in silos (Schradie, 2012). Whichever the case, the discursive activity of minority politicians will always add to the mainstream discourse, and give other individuals examples and practice of how to engage in societal negotiations (e.g. Edley, 2001). Nevertheless, in addition to blog texts, further research should focus on the varied ways minority members enter in identity negotiations with their own and other minority groups and the majority group, such as on discourses that take place on various political levels, in ethnic and community associations, or in official situations such as schools, workplace and other institutional settings where different groups meet. Enhancing our mutual understanding of how minority members themselves contribute to the collectively constructed reality gives us potential to step out from a rigid view of the subordinate position of minorities, and opens up possibilities for a more diverse and equal identity-claiming.
References
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Banting, K. G., & Kymlicka, W. (2012). Is there really a backlash against multiculturalism policies? New evidence from the multiculturalism policy index. Working paper, 4. The Stockholm University Linnaeus Center for Integration Studies.
Berry, J. W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology (pp. 27–42). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J., Phinney, J., Sam, D., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant Youth: Acculturation, Identity, and Adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303–332.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M. (1995a). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
Billig, M. (1995b). Rhetorical psychology, ideological thinking, and imagining
nationhood. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social Movements and Culture (pp.
64–84). London: Routledge.
Bowskill, M., Lyons, E., & Coyle, A. (2007). The rhetoric of acculturation: When integration means assimilation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 793–813.
Bleich, E., Bloemraad, I, & de Graauw, E. (2015). Migrants, minorities and the media:
Information, representation and participation in the public sphere. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41, 857–873.
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive
discrimination among African Americans: implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149.
Brubaker, R. (2002). Ethnicity without groups. Archives Européennes de Sociologie, XLIII, 163–189.
Brubaker, R. (2012). Categories of analysis and categories of practice: a note on the study of Muslims in European countries of immigration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1–8.
Brubaker, R. (2015). The Dolezal affair: race, gender, and the micropolitics of identity.
Ethnic and Racial Studies. Doi: 10.1080/01419870.2015.1084430.
Burr, V. (2015). Social Constructionism (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. (Original work published 2003).
Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society.
International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266.
Carlbom, A. (2006). An empty signifier: the blue-and-yellow Islam of Sweden. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 26, 245–261.
Condor, S. (2006). Temporality and collectivity: Diversity, history and the rhetorical construction of national entitativity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 657–682.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: the discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, pp. 43–63.
DeHanas, D. N. (2013). Elastic orthodoxy: the tactics of young Muslim identity in the East End of London. In N. M. Dessing, N. Jeldtoft, J. Nielson & L. Woodhead (Eds.). Everyday Lived Islam in Europe (pp. 69–84). Farnham: Ashgate.
Edensor, T. (2002). National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg.
Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, subject positions and ideological dilemmas. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 189–228). London: Sage.
Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (1997). Jockeying for position: The construction of masculine identities. Discourse & society, 8, 203–217.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 531, 161–186.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton & Company.
Esses, V. M., Medianu, S., & Lawson, A. S. (2013). Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the media in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 518–536.
Fenton, S. (2006). Race and the Nation. In G. Delanty & K. Kumar (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism (pp. 192–204). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Finell, E. (2012). National Symbols, Their Meanings, and How They Relate to National Identification, Outgroup Attitudes and National Sentiments: Rhetorical, Correlational and Experimental Studies. Helsinki: Publications of the Department of Social Research, 12, University of Helsinki.
Gibson, S. (2015). Constructions of ‘the Polish’ in Northern England: findings from a qualitative interview study. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 43–62.
Doi:10.5964/jspp.v3i2.414.
Gibson, S., & Hamilton, L. (2011). The rhetorical construction of polity membership:
identity, culture and citizenship in young people's discussions of immigration in northern England. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21, 228–242.
Gibson, W., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
Givens, T. E. (2007). Immigrant integration in Europe: empirical research. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 67–83. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.062404.162347.
Harinen, P., Suurpää, L., Hoikkala, T., Hautaniemi, P., Perho, S., Keskisalo, A.-M., Kuure, T., & Künnapuu, K. (2005) Membership contests: encountering immigrant youth in Finland. Journal of Youth Studies, 8, 281–296. Doi: 10.1080/13676260500261884
Horenczyk, G., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2013). Mutuality in acculturation. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 205–213.
Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic Minority Identity. A Social Psychological Perspective. Oxford:
Oxford Science Publications.
Jalonen, J. (2011). Puolikuun pelko. Muslimivastaiset ääriliikkeet Euroopassa ja Suomessa.
In A. Kullberg (Ed.), Suomi, terrorismi, Supo; koira, joka ei haukkunut – miksi ja miten Suomi on välttynyt terroristien toiminnan leviämiseltä? (pp. 322–339). Helsinki: WSOY.
Jasinskaja-lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To identify or not to identify?
National disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 105–128.
Jurva, K., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2015). Accounting for a planned migration through ethnic identity talk. Culture & Psychology, 21, 276–289.
Kelman, H. C. (1997a). Nationalism, patriotism, and national identity: Social-psychological dimensions. In: D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the Life of Individuals and Nations (pp. 165–189). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Kelman, H. C. (1997b). Negotiating national identity and self-determination in ethnic conflicts: The choice between pluralism and ethnic cleansing. Negotiation Journal, 13, 327–340.
Keskinen, S., & Vuori, J. (2012). Erot, kuuluminen ja osallisuus
hyvinvointiyhteiskunnassa. In S. Keskinen, J. Vuori & A. Hirsiaho (Eds.),
Monikulttuurisuuden sukupuoli. Kansalaisuus ja erot hyvinvointi-yhteiskunnassa (pp. 7–
35). Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Kirkwood, S., McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2013). The mutually constitutive relationship between place and identity: the role of place-identity in discourse on asylum seekers and refugees. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 453–465. Doi:
10.1002/casp.2141.
Kofman, E. (2005). Citizenship, migration and the reassertion of national identity.
Citizenship Studies, 9, 453–467.
Kuula, A. (2011). Tutkimusetiikka. Aineistojen hankinta, käyttö ja säilytys. Tampere:
Vastapaino.
Lentin, A. (2005). Replacing ‘race’, historicizing ‘culture’ in multiculturalism. Patterns of prejudice, 39, 379–396.
Levey, G. B. (2009). Review article: what is living and what is dead in multiculturalism.
Ethnicities, 9, 75–93.
Liebkind, K. (2006). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology (pp. 78–97). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Liebkind, K., Mähönen, T. A., Varjonen, S., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2015). Psychology of ethnic identity. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition), 113–117.
Lietsala, K., & Sirkkunen, E. (2008). Social Media. Introduction to the Tools and Processes of Participatory Economy. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Langvasbråten, T. (2008) A Scandinavian model? Gender equality discourses on
multiculturalism. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 32–52.
Meeus, J., Duriez, B., Vanbeselaere, N., & Boen, F. (2010). The role of national identity representation in the relation between in-group identification and out-group derogation:
ethnic versus civic representation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 305–320.
Doi:10.1348/014466609X451455.
McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2008). Social Psychology and Discourse. West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Nortio, E., Varjonen, S., Mähönen T. A., & Jasinskaja-Lahti I. (2016). Interpretative repertoires of multiculturalism – supporting and challenging hierarchical intergroup relations. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4, 623–645. Doi:
10.5964/jspp.v4i2.639.
Pauha, T. J. (2015). Ambassadors of Faith. Journal of Religion in Europe, 8, 73–100.
Pauha, T., & Martikainen, T. (2014). Finland. In J. S. Nielsen, S. Akgönül, A. Alibašić, E.
Račius (Eds.), Yearbook of Muslims in Europe, 6 (pp. 218–228). Leiden: Brill.
Pehrson, S., Vignoles, V. L., & Brown, R. (2009). National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: individual and contextual effects of national definitions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 24–38.
Pettersson, K., Liebkind, K., & Sakki, I. (2016). ‘You who are an immigrant – why are you in the Sweden Democrats?’. Discourse & Society, 27, 624–641.
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of Research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514.
Phinney, J. S., & Alipuria, L. L. (1996). At the interface of culture: multiethnic/multiracial high school and college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 139–158.
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human studies, 9, 219–229.
Potter J. (1996). Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction.
London: Sage.
Potter, J. (2003). Discursive psychology: between method and paradigm. Discourse &
Society, 14, 783–794.
Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2001). Discursive social psychology. In W. P. Robinson & H.
Giles (Eds.), The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 103–118). London:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology. Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1990). Discourse: Noun, verb or social practice? Philosophical Psychology, 3, 205–219.
Puustinen, A., Raisio, H., Kokki, E., & Luhta, J. (2017). Kansalaismielipide:
Turvapaikanhakijat ja turvapaikkapolitiikka. Ministry of the Interior Publications, 9.
Helsinki: Ministry of Interior.
Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and Nation. London: Sage.
Reynolds, J., & Wetherell, M. (2003). The discursive climate of singleness: the
consequences for women’s negotiation of a single identity. Feminism & Psychology, 13, 489–510.
Rooyackers, I. N., & Verkuyten, M. (2012). Mobilizing support for the extreme right: a discursive analysis of minority leadership. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 130–148.
Sakki, I., & Pettersson, K. (2015). Discursive Constructions of Otherness in Populist Radical Right Political Blogs. European Journal of Social Psychology. Article first published online: 26.8.2015. Doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2142.
Salonen, M. (2005). Michael Billig. Ajattelun retoriikka ja ideologisuus. In V. Hänninen, J.
Partanen & O.-H. Ylijoki (Eds.), Sosiaalipsykologian suunnannäyttäjiä (pp. 299–324).
Tampere: Vastapaino.
Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2006). Introduction. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology (pp. 1–7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saukkonen, P. (2004). Kansallinen identiteetti. In J. Pakkasvirta & P. Saukkonen (Eds.), Nationalismit (pp. 90–105). Helsinki: WSOY.
Schradie, J. (2012). The trend of class, race, and ethnicity in social media inequality. Who still cannot afford to blog? Information, Communication & Society, 15, 555–571.
Simon, B. (2009). To be is to do is to be. Collective identity and action. In S. Otten, K.
Sassenberg & T. Kessler (Eds.), Intergroup Relations. The Role of Motivation and Emotion (pp. 223–242). Hove: Psychology Press.
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American psychologist, 56, 319–331.
Sindic, D., & Reicher, S. D. (2009). ‘‘Our way of life is worth defending’’: testing a model of attitudes towards superordinate group membership through a study of Scots’ attitudes towards Britain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 114–129.
Skey, M. (2009). The national in everyday life: A critical engagement with Michael Billig's thesis of Banal Nationalism. The Sociological Review, 57, 331–346.
Stevenson, C., & Muldoon, O. T. (2010). Socio-political context and accounts of national identity in adolescence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 583–599.
Stevenson, C., Hopkins, N., Luyta, R., & Dixon, J. (2015). The social psychology of citizenship: engagement with citizenship studies and future research. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 192–210. Doi: 10.5964/jspp.v3i2.581.
Suoninen, E. (1992). Perheen kuvakulmat. Diskurssianalyysi perheenäidin puheesta.
Tampere: Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, Series A, 24, University of Tampere.
Suoninen, E. (1997). Miten tutkia moniäänistä ihmistä? Diskurssianalyyttisen tutkimusotteen kehittelyä. Tampere: University of Tampere.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47).
Monterey: Brooks.
Taylor, S. (2001). Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & A. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 5–48). London:
Sage.
Titley, G. (2013). They called a war, and someone came. The communicative politics of Breivik’s ideoscape. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 3, 216–224.
Thomas, P., & Sanderson, P. (2011). Unwilling citizens? Muslim young people and national identity. Sociology, 45, 1028–1044.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Uski, S. (2015). Profile Work for Authenticity. Self-presentation in Social Network Services.
Helsinki: Publications of the Department of Social Research, 18.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., Blommaert, J., Gkoumasi, G., & Stogianni, M. (2015). On the need to broaden the concept of ethnic identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 46, 36–46. Doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.021.
Varjonen, S. (2013). Ulkopuolinen vai osallistuja? Identiteetit, ryhmäsuhteet ja integraatio maahanmuuttajien elämäntarinoissa. Helsinki: Publications of the Department of Social Research, 13, University of Helsinki.
Varjonen, S., Arnold, L., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2013). ‘We’re Finns here, and Russians there’: A longitudinal study on ethnic identity construction in the context of ethnic migration. Discourse & Society, 24, 110–134.
Verkuyten, M. (1997). Discourses of ethnic minority identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 565–586.
Verkuyten, M. (2001). ‘Abnormalization’ of ethnic minorities in conversation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 257–278.
Verkuyten, M. (2005). The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity. Hove: Psychology Press.
Verkuyten, M. (2009a). Studying ethnic identity. In I. Jasinskaja-Lahti & T. A. Mähönen (Eds.), Identities, Intergroup Relations and Acculturation. The Cornerstones of
Intercultural Encounters (pp. 41–51). Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Verkuyten, M. (2009b). Support for multiculturalism and minority rights: the role of national identification and out-group threat. Social Justice Research, 22, 31–52.
Verkuyten, M., & De Wolf A. (2002) Being, feeling and doing: Discourses and ethnic self-definitions among minority group members. Culture & Psychology, 8, 371–399.
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9, 387–412.
Willig, C. (2008). Discourse Analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods (pp. 160–185). London: Sage.
Willig, C. (2012). Qualitative Interpretation and Analysis in Psychology. Berkshire:
McGraw-Hill.
Yardley, L. (2008). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods (pp. 235–251). London:
Sage.
Özkirimli, U. (2010). Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.